Comments on Best hope for gay marriage foes? PseudonymsTypePad2013-01-04T03:04:40ZEric Zornhttp://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/tag:typepad.com,2003:http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2013/01/best-hope-for-gay-marriage-foes-pseudonyms/comments/atom.xml/Barry3 commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017ee70e99f5970d2013-01-07T23:35:57Z2013-01-07T23:35:57ZBarry3Wendy, "How is the value of gay marriage different from any other monogamous union? Since it's not, how can it...<p>Wendy,</p>
<p>&quot;How is the value of gay marriage different from any other monogamous union? Since it&#39;s not, how can it be harmful to society?&quot; - Why do you narrowily define marriage in monogamous term? It is different because the straight monogamous marriage can produce children.</p>
<p>&quot;I&#39;m a widow, though I find it hard to believe any other existing form of marriage could have harmed my own, including gay marriage.&quot; First, sorry for your loss. To your point, would a polygamous marriage have harmed your marriage? </p>Natania commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017c356ae47f970b2013-01-07T22:51:06Z2013-01-07T22:51:06ZNatania“I saw a huge steam roller, It blotted out the sun. The people all lay down, lay down; They did...<p>“I saw a huge steam roller,<br />
It blotted out the sun.<br />
The people all lay down, lay down;<br />
They did not try to run.<br />
My love and I, we looked amazed<br />
Upon the gory mystery.<br />
“Lie down, lie down!” the people cried.<br />
“The great machine is history!”<br />
My love and I, we ran away,<br />
The engine did not find us.<br />
We ran up to a mountain top,<br />
Left history far behind us.<br />
Perhaps we should have stayed and died,<br />
But somehow we don’t think so.<br />
We went to see where history’d been,<br />
And my, the dead did stink so. ”<br />
― Kurt Vonnegut, Mother Night</p>Wendy commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3f90b052970c2013-01-07T02:22:40Z2013-01-07T02:22:40ZWendy@Barry3, How is the value of gay marriage different from any other monogamous union? Since it's not, how can it...<p>@Barry3,</p>
<p>How is the value of gay marriage different from any other monogamous union? Since it&#39;s not, how can it be harmful to society?</p>
<p>I&#39;m a widow, though I find it hard to believe any other existing form of marriage could have harmed my own, including gay marriage. The fact that my late husband and I could not have married over fifty years ago in several states does show the incredible harm that could have resulted to our relationship.</p>Barry3 commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017ee704e95c970d2013-01-07T01:44:32Z2013-01-07T01:44:32ZBarry3Wendy, "You have yet to offer proof how gay marriage has harmed society or lessened the importance and strength of...<p>Wendy,</p>
<p>&quot;You have yet to offer proof how gay marriage has harmed society or lessened the importance and strength of your own marriage.&quot; - Likewise, you have yet to prove the value that gay marraige brings to society (not the value the gov&#39;t license would bring to the gay couple and how would a polygamist marriage lessen the importance and strength of your marriage.</p>Wendy commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017c3560b21b970b2013-01-06T22:57:00Z2013-01-06T22:57:00ZWendy@MCN, There wasn't a tradition of polygamy within Europe. It was introduced by the Jewish and Muslim integration into European...<p>@MCN,</p>
<p>There wasn&#39;t a tradition of polygamy within Europe. It was introduced by the Jewish and Muslim integration into European culture and later discovered in other countries through colonization. The more civilization advanced and spread, the practice declined, except in closed cultures which are the last places the practice survives today. The same could be said of arranged marriages, which were more like business contracts, not love matches. We certainly don&#39;t agree to this centuries old custom any longer either.</p>
<p>What does changing marriage to include a new definition have to do with discarded practices of old? Is the process one of exclusion only? Has it not evolved to strengthen the family unit while accommodating changes in the structures of these families? In the light of the divorce problem, isn&#39;t this measure of reaffirming the importance of marriage beneficial to society, rather than harmful? You have yet to offer proof how gay marriage has harmed society or lessened the importance and strength of your own marriage.</p>MCN commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017c355f9823970b2013-01-06T19:17:37Z2013-01-06T19:17:37ZMCN Wendy, you just fell over yourself. One you admitted there has been a tradition of polygamy in European cultures. Thanks....<p>Wendy, you just fell over yourself. One you admitted there has been a tradition of polygamy in European cultures. Thanks. I&#39;m still waiting for the tradiiton of homosexual marriage.</p>
<p>Second, you admit by implication the longer existence of polygamous marriage in other cultures (Muslim in particular, if you must know). By implication, you admit my argument has some strength in those cultures at least, putting yourself in a trick bag that those societies are entitled to prohibit homosexual marriage.</p>
<p>Is homosexual marriage supposed to be a universal human right or not? And the basis for that is what, the opinion of the American and European Left because any one with religioius inclinings have to check their religions at the ballot box?</p>
<p>I don&#39;t think so.</p>Barry3 commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017ee702d074970d2013-01-06T18:52:31Z2013-01-06T18:52:31ZBarry3Jakash, If women's sufferage is the same as gay marriage, then amend the constitution. If you want to change a...<p>Jakash,</p>
<p>If women&#39;s sufferage is the same as gay marriage, then amend the constitution.</p>
<p>If you want to change a US tradition, then let&#39;s allow polygamy back into the country.</p>Greg J. commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017ee70286ea970d2013-01-06T17:58:52Z2013-01-06T17:58:52ZGreg J.@Jakash, You wrote "We're talking about them having the most fulfilling lives possible, regardless of how it may affect anybody...<p>@Jakash,</p>
<p>You wrote &quot;We&#39;re talking about them having the most fulfilling lives possible, regardless of how it may affect anybody else&#39;s tax bracket. It just doesn&#39;t seem logical to me that wishing to have their relationships treated equally, advocating for the full civil rights enjoyed by heterosexuals, should be characterized as a special interest.&quot;</p>
<p>Why not then extend taxpayer benefits to people who are shacking up, to roommates, to best friends? Don&#39;t those people deserve to have their relationships treated equally? Don&#39;t they deserve civil rights? Don&#39;t they deserve fulfilling lives?</p>
<p>The answer is &quot;of course they do.&quot; And we give them all protections and rights, just as we do homosexuals. What I am against is treating homosexual couplings differently from other relationships by providing taxpayer benefits. We already made the mistake of doing that for marriages and I don&#39;t want to make the situation worse.</p>Jakash commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017ee7027d20970d2013-01-06T17:51:42Z2013-01-06T17:51:42ZJakashYes, Barry, society thought so highly of the value of a woman's right to vote that it only took 133...<p>Yes, Barry, society thought so highly of the value of a woman&#39;s right to vote that it only took 133 years for them to obtain this right in the U.S. &quot;Tradition&quot; had to be shelved to allow for that development, in the same way that it is being bypassed now with regard to the recognition of homosexual relationships. </p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><br />
. </p>
<p><br />
</p>Barry3 commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017ee7023a8f970d2013-01-06T17:08:11Z2013-01-06T17:08:11ZBarry3--ChrisH, The polygamists are probably living in the closet because what they do or want to is illegal. Are you...<p>--ChrisH,</p>
<p>The polygamists are probably living in the closet because what they do or want to is illegal. Are you for FULL Marriage Equality or not? As for wasting your time, that you choice.</p>
<p>Jakash,</p>
<p>Womens right to vote is now the comparison? Apples to Oranges. The woman&#39;s right to vote provided value to society. And society thought so much so that they amended the constitution to do so.</p>Richard Monahan commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017c355b6768970b2013-01-06T06:19:40Z2013-01-06T06:19:40ZRichard Monahan@chrisH Eariler in the thread a comment and reply on dealt traditional one man one woman definition of marriage and...<p>@chrisH Eariler in the thread a comment and reply on dealt traditional one man one woman definition of marriage and in reply reference and source was quoted on how prevalent polygamy is/was.</p>
<p>The Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies in Religion and Ministry (CLGS) established at Pacific School of Religion in Berkeley also raises the same point in response to the question: Hasn&#39;t marriage always been between one man and one woman?</p>
<p>&quot;No, it has not. In many cultures, both ancient and modern, polygamy has been quite common, which describes the relationship of one husband with multiple wives. This was, in fact, the predominant pattern of human family in ancient Israelite and other near-Eastern and Mediterranean cultures.&quot;</p>
<p>That is the context for my remark.</p>Lawrence commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017c355b1d19970b2013-01-06T05:25:17Z2013-01-06T05:25:17ZLawrenceIt's amazing to me that it appears many proponents of same-sex marriage are at the same time advocating to maintain...<p>It&#39;s amazing to me that it appears many proponents of same-sex marriage are at the same time advocating to maintain legal prohibitions on marriage among more than two people. I can see opponents of same-sex marriage using it as a slippery slope argument to bolster their belief that they can impose their own morality, but the proponents? Amazing.</p>
<p>Government is just you, me, and a few million of our neighbors. It&#39;s an imaginary construct, as is &quot;society.&quot; Government has no more legitimate power than we do as individuals, from which all power derives. What business do any of us have trying to impose our concepts of morality on our fellow citizens who are consenting legal adults when their actions do not harm us? Again, man-woman, man-man, woman-woman, two women and three men... this is their business, not the concern of anybody else. As soon as you legitimize the concept that you, via your mob rule of government, can choose which is valid and which is not and impose your views on others, you then simply make the concept a matter of political negotiation, not fundamental human rights. The issue is not simply some narrowly defined set that can only be legitimately comprised of two people of whatever sexual orientation you graciously deign permissible. Who are you to define that rule? The core issue is the freedom of consenting adults to form the family structures and commitments they desire, with full freedom and lack of interference and equal protection before the law.</p>Jakash commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3f89b7ab970c2013-01-06T04:30:39Z2013-01-06T04:30:39ZJakashI can't argue with you about my cherry-picking, Greg. I should have stuck with my first comment from yesterday and...<p>I can&#39;t argue with you about my cherry-picking, Greg. I should have stuck with my first comment from yesterday and left it at that, as I simply don&#39;t have any interest in defending my long post from today and we all know what we all think about this topic. That being said, I just can&#39;t let &quot;a leftist special interest group&quot; go unremarked upon. They&#39;re PEOPLE, Greg. They&#39;re not all &quot;leftists&quot;, for crying out loud. </p>
<p>We&#39;re talking about them having the most fulfilling lives possible, regardless of how it may affect anybody else&#39;s tax bracket. It just doesn&#39;t seem logical to me that wishing to have their relationships treated equally, advocating for the full civil rights enjoyed by heterosexuals, should be characterized as a special interest. But, when you consider that it took women, who are a MAJORITY, until the 20th Century to be &quot;granted&quot; the right to vote, given the ever-so-strong role played by &quot;tradition&quot;, I guess it&#39;s pretty impressive that these folks, who are a fairly small minority of the population, have gotten as far as they have in this cultural environment. </p>
<p>Evidently, either they&#39;ve got a point that&#39;s been pretty convincing to a majority of heterosexuals, or they&#39;re an implausibly powerful &quot;special interest group&quot;, given their numbers and their status in society up until very recently. And we all know what we all think about that, too.</p>
<p>Okay, Barry, here&#39;s where you and the paragon of honesty, MCN, bring up polygamy again...</p>ChrisH commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017c355a8e20970b2013-01-06T03:50:21Z2013-01-06T03:50:21ZChrisHRichard m, I don't know what you're talking about. I've only seen anti gay marriage side touting the polygamy slippery...<p>Richard m,</p>
<p>I don&#39;t know what you&#39;re talking about. I&#39;ve only seen anti gay marriage side touting the polygamy slippery slope argument. If the pro marriage mentions it, it&#39;s just to note the marriage policies do evolve.</p>
<p>Gregj, I do think this is better handled as a policy matter through legislation, but I also don&#39;t mind the courts forcing the civil rights issue.</p>
<p>Barry3, Shocked, shocked I am that you would miss the point. Produces a group of real live human beings that are advocating that their polygamous rights are being infringed and then we can debate their case. Unless you&#39;re interested in making a personal declaration, you&#39;re once again wasting my time.</p>Barry3 commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017ee6fc9ed0970d2013-01-05T23:59:46Z2013-01-05T23:59:46ZBarry3--For those arguing tax benefits, since gay marriage would only be recognized at the state level and not the federal...<p>--For those arguing tax benefits, since gay marriage would only be recognized at the state level and not the federal level, gay marraige would add no income tax benefits to couple since the state of Illinois has a flat 5% tax rate and not seperate tax tables for married and single. </p>Richard Monahan commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3f87bf80970c2013-01-05T22:39:17Z2013-01-05T22:39:17ZRichard MonahanI don't know if the President of South Africa considers himself primitive. Sixth time’s the charm: Polygamist South African president...<p> I don&#39;t know if the President of South Africa considers himself primitive.</p>
<p> Sixth time’s the charm: Polygamist South African president Jacob Zuma beams with delight as he marries Gloria Ngema (while his other three wives look on)</p>
<p>By Stewart Maclean</p>
<p>PUBLISHED: 13:47 EST, 21 April 2012 | UPDATED: 19:15 EST, 21 April 2012</p>
<p>Read more: <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2133220/Polygamist-South-African-president-Jacob-Zuma-marries-Gloria-Ngema-wives-look-on.html#ixzz2H8tyH31C" rel="nofollow">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2133220/Polygamist-South-African-president-Jacob-Zuma-marries-Gloria-Ngema-wives-look-on.html#ixzz2H8tyH31C</a><br />
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook</p>
<p><br />
</p>Greg J. commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017c3558abd2970b2013-01-05T22:09:38Z2013-01-05T22:09:38ZGreg J.@Jakash, I suppose it also speaks volumes that it's the one point you chose to pick on and yet you...<p>@Jakash,</p>
<p>I suppose it also speaks volumes that it&#39;s the one point you chose to pick on and yet you didn&#39;t get it quite right. The only equivalence is that I was using it as an example to disprove your idea that I only vote in my self interest. Other than that (and as I thought I made clear), I find the mortgage interest deduction, and tax reform generally, far more important to me and to society compared to the issue of redefining marriage to appease a leftist special interest group.</p>Richard Monahan commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017ee6fbd06b970d2013-01-05T21:37:20Z2013-01-05T21:37:20ZRichard Monahan"That's it; the God and nature arguments (the fiscal argument takes the cake) are weak last gasps from desperate, angry...<p>&quot;That&#39;s it; the God and nature arguments (the fiscal argument takes the cake) are weak last gasps from desperate, angry people ....&quot; Argue away and dip into the shallow end of the pool for reasoning. But you are wrong. you&#39;re better than that. </p>Wendy commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3f873903970c2013-01-05T21:09:56Z2013-01-05T21:09:56ZWendy"It is an established marital practice in existence for millenia." And rejected by European cultures even before Christianity became the...<p>&quot;It is an established marital practice in existence for millenia.&quot;</p>
<p>And rejected by European cultures even before Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire. Monogamy was established for Jewish people not long after and bigamy laws were created to enforce this throughout Eurasia and the Americas. Nothing in any of the proposals for gay marriage require breaking this long held &quot;tradition&quot;. Polygamy has proven to be a failed social experiment and rejected by all except the most primitive of societies. If you observe the treatment of women in these societies you can see why modern societies have not even imagined bringing this back. Once again, this has nothing to do with gay marriage, a union between two consenting adults. It does show how views on marriage change over history.</p>
<p>This is just an excuse brought up to deflect the real reason many reject gay marriage; the belief that gay relationships are abnormal, abominable in the eyes of many. They&#39;re insulted and offended gays should receive the same recognition through &quot;Traditional Marriage&quot; involving a man and a woman. That&#39;s it; the God and nature arguments (the fiscal argument takes the cake) are weak last gasps from desperate, angry people fearing the equality gays are long overdue.</p>Barry3 commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3f86f635970c2013-01-05T20:25:21Z2013-01-05T20:25:21ZBarry3Jakash, That mortgage interest comparison is ALMOST as silly as a comparison of slavery to gay marriage.<p>Jakash,</p>
<p>That mortgage interest comparison is ALMOST as silly as a comparison of slavery to gay marriage.</p>MCN commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3f86f40d970c2013-01-05T20:23:52Z2013-01-05T20:23:52ZMCN @Jakash, polygamy is not a slippery slope. It is an established marital practice in existence for millenia. It is far...<p>@Jakash, polygamy is not a slippery slope. It is an established marital practice in existence for millenia. It is far more intellectually and biologically defensible than homosexual marriage.</p>
<p>The reason why traditional marriage advocates like myself bring it up is to demonstrate the intellectual dishonesty and incoherence of the homosexual caucus, who are making a living talking out of both sides of their mouth and denying the obvious.</p>
<p>Your guys call my guys &quot;bigots&quot;. OK, that&#39;s a matter of opinion. We call your guys dishonest. That&#39;s a matter of fact.</p>Jakash commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3f86c77d970c2013-01-05T19:54:34Z2013-01-05T19:54:34ZJakashGreg, With all due respect, the fact that you find an equivalence between the mortgage interest deduction and what attempting...<p>Greg,<br />
With all due respect, the fact that you find an equivalence between the mortgage interest deduction and what attempting to live a life of equality in this society as a gay person might entail, speaks volumes. </p>Greg J. commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017c3557c5e5970b2013-01-05T19:46:10Z2013-01-05T19:46:10ZGreg J.@ChrisH, You wrote "Is any significant group anywhere in the country advocating for polygamy? Is there a ground swell of...<p>@ChrisH,</p>
<p>You wrote &quot;Is any significant group anywhere in the country advocating for polygamy? Is there a ground swell of public support for polygamy.&quot;</p>
<p>If those are the questions that must be answered to determine whether we should redefine marriage, then you&#39;d agree that it&#39;s a policy matter (one we vote on) rather than a legal matter (one for the courts to decide), right? Otherwise, you&#39;d have to come up with a reason for the courts to base a legal decision on public opinion, which is improper.</p>
<p>@Jakash,</p>
<p>That we shouldn&#39;t be doling out benefits to any special interest groups is a position I&#39;m comfortable defending. That we shouldn&#39;t be expanding the role of a government that is broke and taking on even more spending is a position I&#39;m even more comfortable defending.</p>
<p>You wrote &quot;And that&#39;s conceding that gay marriage will create a net cost to the country, which has not been demonstrated.&quot;</p>
<p>Let&#39;s approach this logically. If you look above at the benefits of marriage link I provided to Dienne, you will see that the government does in fact provide benefits to married couples. If we expand the definition of marriage, it will provide benefits to married couples and people in other relationships (i.e., those considered &quot;married&quot; for government purposes). Government gets its money from taxpayers. Therefore, the costs on taxpayers must increase due to the expanded definition.</p>
<p>You also wrote &quot;I can just imagine what an effective spokesman FOR gay marriage Greg would be, if HE were gay. If he were being DENIED something, rather than being asked to ALLOW it for somebody else.&quot;</p>
<p>Let&#39;s look at how your logic applies to an issue I actually consider important, such as the mortgage interest deduction. I currently claim a significant deduction for mortgage interest. I would vote to repeal this deduction as part of an effort to remove illogical loopholes from the tax code. So on an issue that hits close to home (no pun intended) for me, I&#39;m voting against my interest.</p>
<p>Finally, you wrote &quot;This is a society, not an every-man-for-himself grudge match.&quot; Mostly true when it comes to our interactions (although this is increasingly less so, which is an unfortunate side effect of increasing diversity of all kinds) but completely false when it comes to politics.</p>Barry3 commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3f86293c970c2013-01-05T18:16:13Z2013-01-05T18:16:13ZBarry3Jakash and ChrisH, Either you are for marriage equality or not? Or is it equal for only some? Also, if...<p>Jakash and ChrisH,</p>
<p>Either you are for marriage equality or not? Or is it equal for only some?</p>
<p>Also, if gays get married, will the question that they ask you &quot;Are you related?&quot; still be necessary? Since there can be no harm if two related people of the same gender get married.</p>Jakash commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3f85e6d4970c2013-01-05T17:34:38Z2013-01-05T17:34:38ZJakashAfter wading through all these comments on this, the 9,000th post on gay marriage, one thing has become clear to...<p>After wading through all these comments on this, the 9,000th post on gay marriage, one thing has become clear to me. We&#39;ve all seen the best of what the supporters of &quot;marriage is between one man and one woman&quot; have to offer. Over and over and over again. We don&#39;t seem to break a whole lot of new ground as the posts pile up. (Granted, on either side.) As far as I can tell, the anti- arguments boil down to &quot;but what about polygamy?&quot;, &quot;Tradition!&quot;, and Greg&#39;s tortured arguments that he not pay for anything that he doesn&#39;t want to pay for, or allow government authority to expand in any way. </p>
<p>Polygamy (&quot;the practice or condition of having more than one spouse&quot; -- sorry, Garry, I don&#39;t see what&#39;s wrong with that term for the overall purposes of this discussion) is so self-evidently different from gay marriage that its continued use as a &quot;gotcha&quot; on these threads mainly indicates to me the lack of valid arguments possessed by the opponents. The deleterious effects of polygyny, compared with monogamy, have been indicated many times, most recently by Dr. X at 9:16 last night and by others on this and other threads. The &quot;natural&quot; differences between one person marrying one person and one person marrying many people dwarf the biological differences that MCN always insists are determinative with regard to this matter.</p>
<p>&quot;This is not the tradition of society for thousands of years, or this country since its founding!&quot; First of all, so what? The same argument could have been used to keep women from voting, and was. Secondly, the claim that &quot;traditional marriage&quot; has always been the norm has been debunked over and over, as well. Somebody, somewhere on here made a reference to this argument being based on the &quot;Tevye school of government&quot;, or something like that. I appreciated that one.</p>
<p>As for GregJ, and his insistence that he not be required to pay whatever the egregious costs of expanding marriage to include homosexual relationships might be. He&#39;s such an effective advocate that he will never give an inch on claiming that this is a justifiable reason to discriminate against one group of individuals because they happen to be late to the party when it comes to recognition of their relationships. But this argument is very much in keeping with the Ron Paul philosophy that he so admires. It may appeal to a certain subset of radical libertarians, but will not hold much sway when it comes to how this whole matter plays out. IMHO. This is a society, not an every-man-for-himself grudge match. We all pay for things that don&#39;t benefit us personally and we always will. (And that&#39;s conceding that gay marriage will create a net cost to the country, which has not been demonstrated.) As a thought experiment, I can just imagine what an effective spokesman FOR gay marriage Greg would be, if HE were gay. If he were being DENIED something, rather than being asked to ALLOW it for somebody else. If gay marriage were in HIS interest, and not that of a group to which he does not belong.</p>
<p>Sorry, Richard Monahan, but in these threads, polygamy is overwhelmingly used as a slippery slope argument by gay marriage opponents. I can&#39;t speak as to what the situation might be outside these threads, or deny that it is intermittently used here in the way that you indicate. </p>
<p>All that being said, it SO disappoints me that I&#39;m even bothering to comment about this again. Lord knows why I bother reading these arguments at all, at this point. Or why ANY of the regulars here do, for that matter. </p>Richard Monahan commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017ee6fa1ff2970d2013-01-05T17:03:32Z2013-01-05T17:03:32ZRichard MonahanPolygamy was brought into the argument to buttress support that marriage has never been exclusive province of one man, one...<p>Polygamy was brought into the argument to buttress support that marriage has never been exclusive province of one man, one woman. No one is advocating it, but pro gay marriage advocates always point to it. Interesting use of on one hand bolstering your argument with a fact and then vociferously deny the legitimacy of the same fact. </p>ChrisH commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3f85560c970c2013-01-05T16:03:58Z2013-01-05T16:03:58ZChrisHI had decided to sit on the sidelines for the 852nd round in this debate on COS, but I do...<p>I had decided to sit on the sidelines for the 852nd round in this debate on COS, but I do have what I think is a new observation.</p>
<p>Barry and others love to accuse people of using strawman arguments (at times misusing the term in my opinion). The polygamy argument is a giant strawman. Is any significant group anywhere in the country advocating for polygamy? Is there a ground swell of public support for polygamy. Is there a noteworthy history of healthy and productive polygamous relationship (post industrial revolution)?</p>
<p>In the future, if polygamy has any of these things, we&#39;ll probably be having a similar debate. Until then, take your strawman and go to bed.</p>Barry3 commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3f8515bc970c2013-01-05T15:23:03Z2013-01-05T15:23:03ZBarry3Occam, My deepest apologies to you on my misspelling. I don't recall it being pointed out to me, but if...<p>Occam,</p>
<p>My deepest apologies to you on my misspelling. I don&#39;t recall it being pointed out to me, but if you say so, I will accept that. I will assume that it is you that have pointed out my mispelling and that might be the reason I don&#39;t remember it.</p>
<p>Did I have any misspellings this time?</p>Joseph J Finn commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3f828897970c2013-01-05T07:01:37Z2013-01-05T07:01:37ZJoseph J Finn--Incidentally, I'm amused by all the people using fake names in a post that started about people's great great great...<p>--Incidentally, I&#39;m amused by all the people using fake names in a post that started about people&#39;s great great great grandkids being coddled in the film Lincoln by having fake names used.</p>Garry commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3f81a71f970c2013-01-05T04:43:39Z2013-01-05T04:43:39ZGarryI just wish government would get out of the marriage granting business & only issue civil union licenses, just like...<p>I just wish government would get out of the marriage granting business &amp; only issue civil union licenses, just like most of Europe has done for decades.</p>
<p>Marriage would then be an optional addon to those who want approval from a group that believes in one or more fantasy beings in the sky!</p>
<p>No one should be needed to solemnize a union, ever!</p>
<p>@Doctor X &amp; a few others: Please stop calling it polygamy. What you&#39;re referring to in most cases is polygyny, one man with many wives.<br />
One woman with many husbands is polyandry, which is fairly rare.</p>Nobody commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017c355292c5970b2013-01-05T04:26:35Z2013-01-11T02:43:41ZNobodyhttp://profile.typepad.com/6p017d3f817eb0970cThere are two problems with "gay" marriage. As at least one other poster wrote, why doesn't the bill also sanction...<p>There are two problems with &quot;gay&quot; marriage. As at least one other poster wrote, why doesn&#39;t the bill also sanction polygamy? How do you draw that line? Why is it now ok to continue to discriminate against polygamists? Or what if &quot;consenting adults&quot; wanted to engage in some sort of group marriage? Say two guys and three women all married to each other. Why not? Why discriminate against that? Where is the logic? The other problem is that the U.S. goes around the world telling other countries that democracy is such a great thing, but here in Illinois we have no democracy. Instead of asking the people of the state in a referendum whether they want to be governed by this kind of law, the idiots in Springfield just want to impose it. Why? Because there is a squeaky wheel crying discrimination. It&#39;s not about fairness or equality. It&#39;s about politicians looking for votes in a vocal LGBT community. I suppose there is at least one other problem with the bill too. What happened to civil unions? That was another lie that the criminals that run the Democratic and Republican parties told to the people of Illinois. Civil unions are virtually identical to marriages. Springfield went the &quot;civil union&quot; route only because it didn&#39;t have the guts to be honest with the public and explain that it was legalizing homosexual marriage. Now, only about a year after the civil union law became effective, that isn&#39;t good enough. With the pension, debt and credit rating problems this state already has, Springfield has more important issues that demand immediate attention.</p>MCN commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3f817238970c2013-01-05T04:17:35Z2013-01-05T04:17:35ZMCN @Richard Monahan: Thanks.<p>@Richard Monahan: Thanks.</p>Occam's Razor commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017c355237cb970b2013-01-05T03:41:04Z2013-01-05T03:41:04ZOccam's Razor@Barry3: There is only one E in the word argument. This has been pointed out to you several times in...<p>@Barry3:</p>
<p>There is only one E in the word argument. This has been pointed out to you several times in this blog. The fact you are a slow learner does not surprise me. </p>Barry3 commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3f8116ad970c2013-01-05T03:31:42Z2013-01-05T03:31:42ZBarry3Wendy, I'm not saying all arguements against gay marriage are not bigoted. However, you sure can't be the judge. Dr...<p>Wendy,</p>
<p>I&#39;m not saying all arguements against gay marriage are not bigoted. However, you sure can&#39;t be the judge.</p>
<p>Dr X,</p>
<p>I used a condescending arguement for to counter a trival argument.</p>
<p>However, not all polygamist marraiges are abusive to women and as far as I know, they do enter into these relationships based upon their own free will (in this country).</p>
<p>Once again, using the slavery comparison and creating a false arguement of what you think I would have said in 1865. You make an incorrect assumption that since I am against gay marraige that I also must be a racist. When you have nothing to say, scream racism.<br />
</p>Occam's Razor commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017c3552082c970b2013-01-05T03:16:57Z2013-01-05T03:16:57ZOccam's RazorAfter reading this comment thread, two things bring a smile to my face: 1) Red Racer IPA from Central City...<p>After reading this comment thread, two things bring a smile to my face:</p>
<p>1) Red Racer IPA from Central City Brewing, and</p>
<p>2) The fact that all the anti-gay-marriage commenters on this board will live to see it become the law of the land (barring a collision with the bread truck or some other untimely early demise).</p>
<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIrhVo1WA78" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIrhVo1WA78</a></p>Dr X commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017c355206a6970b2013-01-05T03:16:01Z2013-01-05T03:16:01ZDr X@Barry3, regarding a more decent, fair society: "So would giving every a child a bright shiny new bike." No, and...<p>@Barry3, regarding a more decent, fair society:</p>
<p>&quot;So would giving every a child a bright shiny new bike.&quot;</p>
<p>No, and thanks for revealing how incredibly condescending and trivializing your are when it comes to the lives of same-sex couples. I vehemently disagree with the other conservatives here, but I I believe they&#39;re sincere and decent people. I have my doubts about you.</p>
<p>And, you wrote:</p>
<p>&quot;Couldn&#39;t the same be said for polygamy? Wouldn&#39;t that make us a more inclusive society?&quot;</p>
<p>No, polygamous societies have a consistent track record of abuse toward women. They&#39;re about power and indecency toward those with less power. And are you completely unaware that the slippery slope argument is regarded as a fallacy? I could just hear Barry3, circa 1865: &quot;If we let black men vote, then why not women... and monkeys, and dogs and goldfish.&quot;</p>Dr X commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017c3551f499970b2013-01-05T03:04:52Z2013-01-05T03:04:52ZDr X--@left hell inois "try to ramrod special interest legislation to appease the homo votes. " I don't apologize for saying...<p>--@left hell inois<br />
&quot;try to ramrod special interest legislation to appease the homo votes. &quot;</p>
<p>I don&#39;t apologize for saying that left hell inoios is clearly a dumb, lowlife bigot.<br />
</p>Richard Monahan commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017c3551ea56970b2013-01-05T02:58:39Z2013-01-05T02:58:39ZRichard Monahan@MCN: Glad to to see you exercise self control and not take the bait from a certain commentator this board.<p>@MCN: Glad to to see you exercise self control and not take the bait from a certain commentator this board. </p>Edge of the 14th Ward commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017ee6f4d1b4970d2013-01-05T01:50:43Z2013-01-05T01:50:43ZEdge of the 14th Ward@Greg J: "Rights" is a loaded word, but it will do in a pinch. Every "right" can be restricted for...<p>@Greg J: &quot;Rights&quot; is a loaded word, but it will do in a pinch. Every &quot;right&quot; can be restricted for one legitimate reason or another, but I don&#39;t think cost savings are a good enough reason. If you told me we should stop issuing driver&#39;s licenses to teens because they represent a danger to other drivers, I would consider your argument. If you told me we should stop issuing driver&#39;s licenses to teens because it would save the state money, I wouldn&#39;t consider your argument.</p>
<p>Why should we issue marriage licenses to gay couples? To me, the answer is simple. I see civil marriage as an expression of loving commitment between two consenting adults; nothing more, nothing less. (Others may have a different definition.) If society is willing to provide support and confer legitimacy on my straight marriage, I don&#39;t see why we shouldn&#39;t do the same for gay couples who are just as capable of making a loving commitment.</p>
<p>@Dr. X: &quot;I understand why opponents of same-sex marriage would rather not talk about it and maintain the status quo. That&#39;s no reason for advocates of same sex marriage to shut up and effectively give up, especially when our side has been winning, but if anyone finds the discussion futile, they can always withdraw from the discussion.&quot;</p>
<p>Perhaps this was directed at me because I said I found these threads to be tedious. The reason for that is because I think gay marriage is inevitable. Of course I don&#39;t begrudge people their advocacy, and I admire the work advocates have done to persuade the persuadable, but I don&#39;t think any of the gay marriage opponents who post here are persuadable. Also, this issue is incredibly straightforward for me, so I&#39;m not particularly motivated to engage. Basically, the reason I tend to tune these threads out is the same reason I tend to turn off basketball games when one team is leading by 20 in the final minutes and the other team is reduced to fouling on every possession.</p>Lawrence commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017c3551566a970b2013-01-05T01:31:39Z2013-01-05T01:31:39ZLawrenceWho marries whom should be no business of anybody other than those who want to get married. The only legitimate...<p>Who marries whom should be no business of anybody other than those who want to get married. The only legitimate exception should be protection of people who cannot give informed consent or lack the mental capacity to do so. Man and man, woman and woman, two men and three women, if they are legal adults marrying of their own free will, more power to them.</p>
<p>As a society, we don&#39;t need to be judging or imposing our subjective morals on others when their actions don&#39;t harm us. I personally feel that homosexuality is a defect. But then so is the fact that I can&#39;t see without glasses, or that Stephen Hawking is terribly handicapped. Just because the human machine is imperfect makes us no less deserving of equal rights. Humans are human and have rights as free, sovereign human beings. Freedom of association (or to not associate in the case of churches and gay marriage), freedom of expression, and freedom in general.</p>
<p>The less government there is, the less coercion, the less trying to force people to live the way you want and think the way you want and behave the way you want when it doesn&#39;t harm you, the better.</p>
<p>It is sad that the people will vociferously support gay marriage, and at the same time strongly support diminishing the liberty of others in order to grind that axe, as this bill does. They see no incongruence in that. Freedom, but only on their terms.</p>Wendy commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3f80245e970c2013-01-05T01:09:30Z2013-01-05T01:09:30ZWendy"It cares about imposing its will and rewarding the trendy special interest group of the moment." @Greg J, That's not...<p>&quot;It cares about imposing its will and rewarding the trendy special interest group of the moment.&quot;</p>
<p>@Greg J,</p>
<p>That&#39;s not government, it&#39;s the political ambitions of either side of the debate. They must demand the mile instead of accepting the inch that satisfies their position. Lawrence is right to be offended if the line was crossed, though that line is clearly unconstitutional. This does not mean the correct solution should be denied.</p>
<p>Your insistence in calling this a trendy special interest group or fad does not bolster your side of the discussion. It merely belittles your position.</p>Dr X commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017ee6f48b1d970d2013-01-05T01:06:05Z2013-01-05T01:06:05ZDr XTodd, I don't think you're going to find anyone around here who believes your proposals are the least bit compelling....<p>Todd,</p>
<p>I don&#39;t think you&#39;re going to find anyone around here who believes your proposals are the least bit compelling. You might visit a site like Stormfront, where similar lines of reasoning are quite popular.</p>
<p>Meantime, in the world where decent people reside, questions of rights are not dispensed with because of decisions by parents not to terminate pregnancies, as in: &quot;Tough luck. You don&#39;t have this or that right because your parents let you be born.&quot; I find that quite a morally defective attitude, yet I still think you&#39;re entitled to your rights, even though you weren&#39;t aborted. It&#39;s wasn&#39;t your decision to be born.</p>Greg J. commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017ee6f46a8a970d2013-01-05T00:43:19Z2013-01-05T00:43:19ZGreg J.@JL, Yes and I couldn't possibly have been more clear about that in the 3,000 discussions that have gone on...<p>@JL,</p>
<p>Yes and I couldn&#39;t possibly have been more clear about that in the 3,000 discussions that have gone on here. The fact remains that the left asserts bias when conservatives make any argument so I&#39;ve stopped caring. As Lawrence points out in his comment, the Illinois bill is about a whole lot more than equality for homosexuals. It&#39;s a power and money grab as most government intrusions are but those of us who understand how the government really works see right through it. The government doesn&#39;t care about equality. It cares about imposing its will and rewarding the trendy special interest group of the moment.</p>JL commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017ee6f459d1970d2013-01-05T00:32:34Z2013-01-05T00:32:34ZJL@Greg J - Just to confirm your previously stated opinion, I think, you would support eliminating civil marriage altogether, right?...<p>@Greg J - Just to confirm your previously stated opinion, I think, you would support eliminating civil marriage altogether, right?</p>
<p>If so, why not emphasize that more strongly? I don&#39;t think people would agree but they would be less likely to read in anti-gay bias. </p>Barry3 commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3f7fd42e970c2013-01-05T00:15:06Z2013-01-05T00:15:06ZBarry3I see Obama is dominating an anti-gay person to be Sec of Defense: GetEQUAL strongly opposes the potential nomination of...<p>I see Obama is dominating an anti-gay person to be Sec of Defense:</p>
<p>GetEQUAL strongly opposes the potential nomination of Chuck Hagel to become the next Secretary of Defense. Hagel has, time and time again, taken every opportunity to lambast and denigrate lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Americans, and the Cabinet is no place for this kind of disrespect,&quot; writes the chair GetEQUAL&#39;s board Tanya Domi. </p>Wendy commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017c3550e2c9970b2013-01-05T00:13:07Z2013-01-05T00:13:07ZWendy"Didn't you just days ago talk about how nice it was to have a post without people name calling and...<p>&quot;Didn&#39;t you just days ago talk about how nice it was to have a post without people name calling and there you go calling people bigots.&quot;</p>
<p>Are you saying all protests against gay marriage and related behavior are non-bigoted? My comment is against the frothing at the mouth zealots who refuse to recognize gays&#39; place as equals in our society based solely on their sexual orientation.<br />
If you like, use a prettier word to describe this hatred; intolerance.</p>Greg J. commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017c3550d9cb970b2013-01-05T00:07:01Z2013-01-05T00:07:01ZGreg J.@Dr X, As always, you bring up excellent points. If logistically it made sense for me to be married in...<p>@Dr X,</p>
<p>As always, you bring up excellent points. If logistically it made sense for me to be married in the Church&#39;s eyes but not the state&#39;s, i&#39;d go for it. I have a hard time seeing where that would ever be the case. There is too much that goes along with marriage to realistically consider that option, and at that point you have to consider employer benefits as well.</p>
<p>If extensive analysis revealed the costs of redefining marriage to include any alternative relationship (e.g., homosexual couplings, shack-ups, roommates, threesomes) were zero, i&#39;d go along with it. I don&#39;t care what people do and I&#39;m all for the freedom to contract and freedom of association. I&#39;ve written in other threads that I support civil unions (of any kind) that bundle contract rights (e.g., inheritance) but confer no benefits.</p>
<p>If you think I&#39;m being hypocritical by claiming marriage benefits while denying them to others (who aren&#39;t even married under any rational definition of the word) then everyone needs to take a long look in the mirror. We all take advantage of benefits that others can&#39;t have based on their status. Should a married person feel bad about taking benefits while an unmarried couple who are shacking up can&#39;t? Should I feel bad when I get a tax benefit from my 409A plan that isn&#39;t available to others making less? Should a person who owns his home refuse to take a mortgage interest deduction because renters don&#39;t get a similar break? I can do this all day. The point is that we should be voting to limit government while taking advantage of its ridiculous biased laws to starve it and recoup as much of our money as we can because we are overtaxed. </p>Shallow Thinker commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017c3550ccaf970b2013-01-04T23:57:58Z2013-01-04T23:57:58ZShallow ThinkerThank you to Dr. X for responding to the request asking for a scientific study concerning sexual orientation and homosexuality....<p>Thank you to Dr. X for responding to the request asking for a scientific study concerning sexual orientation and homosexuality. But, really, if we are going to parse our language so fine as to muddle the discussion, then we should all be in the U.S. Congress! </p>
<p>Biology may not be in the &quot;business&quot; proofing, however, biological science does report results of studies. All I&#39;m suggesting is this: Science has not - to date - offered up a hands down, proof positive study that indicates the physiological basis for sexual orientation. And if it does I&#39;m sure even that would be open to debate, e.g., global warming.</p>
<p>If we are serious in seeing same sex marriage legal in Illinois then we should keep our discussion focused on what will resonate with most citizens: Fair-mindedness. The reasons why a person is gay or straight cannot be the issue - it will only divide the very people who should be working together.<br />
</p>Lawrence commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3f7fb6d7970c2013-01-04T23:54:42Z2013-01-04T23:54:42ZLawrenceI support gay marriage, or rather, government not deciding who can marry whom. However, I also listened to the live...<p>I support gay marriage, or rather, government not deciding who can marry whom.</p>
<p>However, I also listened to the live testimony yesterday in the Senate regarding the bill. I was looking forward to hearing how we would be moving forward on this.</p>
<p>Instead, I found myself disturbed. It seems to me that it isn&#39;t enough to permit gay marriage as a civil ceremony, or in churches such as the Unitarians and others who welcome it. Instead the authors also want to force churches to change their behavior significantly and even rub their noses in it.</p>
<p>Per the testimony of those who wrote the amendment, if a church has a paid child care program, it would be required to permit gay marriage ceremonies. Ditto if it rents out the basement for activities. If it charges a fee of any type for marriage ceremonies, such as a janitorial fee, it must permit ceremonies. The witnesses also testified that most likely even accepting a tax exemption as a charitable organization will mandate permitting gay marriage ceremonies.</p>
<p>This is based on the concept that churches, once they accept any type of payment for any use of their space for any reason, or if they receive any type of &quot;public benefit,&quot; become public accommodations. As a public accommodation, the church then loses any ability to decide who may or may not use the church for a wedding, whether the church provides the officiating or not. The response of the supporters of the bill was that, well, churches can change their behavior, and cease child care programs, and give up their tax exemptions if they don&#39;t want to have ceremonies with which they morally disagree take place on their premises.</p>
<p>This is completely ridiculous and disrespectful of religious liberty, and has entirely sapped my support for this particular bill.</p>Barry3 commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017ee6f41dcc970d2013-01-04T23:50:43Z2013-01-04T23:50:43ZBarry3Wendy, "Considering how many gay Americans had to hide their sexual orientation for past decades to prevent discrimination and protect...<p>Wendy,</p>
<p>&quot;Considering how many gay Americans had to hide their sexual orientation for past decades to prevent discrimination and protect their families, it&#39;s right their most fierce opponents will have to disguise their bigotry, along with their history of supporting and fighting for continued discrimination.&quot;</p>
<p>Didn&#39;t you just days ago talk about how nice it was to have a post without people name calling and there you go calling people bigots.</p>Barry3 commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017ee6f41a3b970d2013-01-04T23:47:55Z2013-01-04T23:47:55ZBarry3Dr. X, "Yes it (passing gay marriage) does. It makes us a more decent and fair society." - So would...<p>Dr. X,</p>
<p>&quot;Yes it (passing gay marriage) does. It makes us a more decent and fair society.&quot; - So would giving every a child a bright shiny new bike. Couldn&#39;t the same be said for polygamy? Wouldn&#39;t that make us a more inclusive society?</p>
<p> Harry,</p>
<p>&quot;It brings in State Revenue, saves taxes, they adopt kids that no one would want providing them with a loving home, but to seriously be scared of change?&quot; If you are referring to thw wedding industry revenue, then why does a piece of paper from the gov&#39;t preclude a gay couple from throwing a party or taking a trip? The same could be said for polygamy or are you scared of change?</p>
<p>Dineen,</p>
<p>&quot;Must marriage provide something to society to be considered valid? What does it provide to society if two 80-year-olds get married?&quot; That marriage probably does not provide any benefit to society, but do you want the gov&#39;t involved in fertility tests to determine which hetrosexual couples can get married? We know that a gay couple cannot reproduce.</p>
<p>&quot;Mention &quot;society&quot; in connection with, say, education or health care and I&#39;m betting Barry3 will be the first to disparage the very idea.&quot; - Better done by the individual or the private sector. Just compare the results.</p>
<p>Stephen Nolan,</p>
<p>&quot;Barry3 opines that Eric Zorn has used a false comparison between slavery and marriage equality. What is the source for her opinion?&quot; First, I guess you really can&#39;t tell the gender of someone with the name Barry. The source of my opinion is niether the Bible nor the Natural Law (soprry your strawman just crumbled); its common sense. Comparing gay marriage to slavery makes about as much sense as comparing gay marriage to the holocaust. They are not equivalents.</p>
<p>&quot;It is also apparent that using national and state laws to discriminate against citizens based on either of these sources is inappropriate.&quot; Do you feel the same way about polygamy?</p>Greg J. commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3f7f9fdf970c2013-01-04T23:36:45Z2013-01-04T23:36:45ZGreg J.@Wendy, Oh no, you don't (my friend). My problem with no-fault divorce is that it takes the conservatives' best argument...<p>@Wendy,</p>
<p>Oh no, you don&#39;t (my friend). My problem with no-fault divorce is that it takes the conservatives&#39; best argument and blows it out of the water. In other words, I get their position that traditional marriage forms best possible family unit, which is the fundamental building block of society, thus providing a strong justification for government recognition of marriage (even if I still disagree with that position on balance). When you start adding things like no-fault, you weaken their argument such that I have a hard time taking it as seriously. That&#39;s why I&#39;m against no-fault. If we&#39;re stuck with marriage, at least make it based on a logical premise (even though, again, it&#39;s one with which I disagree).</p>Dr X commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017c3550b048970b2013-01-04T23:35:25Z2013-01-04T23:35:25ZDr XThe opinions of an enormous number of people have shifted radically in a very short period of the time, so...<p>The opinions of an enormous number of people have shifted radically in a very short period of the time, so I certainly don&#39;t see the discussion as futile, though I understand why opponents of same-sex marriage would rather not talk about it and maintain the status quo. That&#39;s no reason for advocates of same sex marriage to shut up and effectively give up, especially when our side has been winning, but if anyone finds the discussion futile, they can always withdraw from the discussion. </p>Greg J. commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017ee6f400bb970d2013-01-04T23:27:46Z2013-01-04T23:27:46ZGreg J.@Edge, Even if we perceive marriage as a right (and I don't) why do we have to redefine the term...<p>@Edge,</p>
<p>Even if we perceive marriage as a right (and I don&#39;t) why do we have to redefine the term to include homosexual couplings? I understand why one might want that as a policy preference but it&#39;s not illogical to maintain the traditional definition of the word. The reason to deny a marriage license to a homosexual couple is simple - the benefits that come with the license aren&#39;t worth the costs, as I&#39;ve explained at length above.</p>
<p>Yes, I&#39;m all for reducing tax breaks for married couples but how in the world do you administer a ban on biracial marriage even if you want to? The costs of compliance seem to outweigh any benefit you&#39;d get under the law. Honestly, can you tell the races of a lot of people you run into in the 14th (or any) Ward? I can&#39;t. The small percentage of marriages that fit into that category can&#39;t be worth it. Also, why not simply get the government out of all marriages rather than target biracial couples? That seems the simpler and more elegant solution - and it&#39;s far more likely to work (although I don&#39;t expect it to happen).</p>Xuuths commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017c355099db970b2013-01-04T23:21:35Z2013-01-04T23:21:35ZXuuthsGreg J., however, as a hypocrite, you continue to work to save your corporation taxes -- meaning that the rest...<p>Greg J., however, as a hypocrite, you continue to work to save your corporation taxes -- meaning that the rest of us taxpayers have to subsidize those actions.</p>
<p>Sad that you cling to a stance which has been so thoroughly debunked! It appears that only YOU are unaware of your hypocrisy and inconsistency. Denial is your middle name.<br />
======</p>
<p>MCN, you are continuing with your nauseating lie about what is &quot;natural.&quot; Such ignorance.</p>
<p>You have no credibility here, except among the easily deluded. You try to sound like what stupid people think smart people sound like. It&#39;s a joke!</p>
<p>You are projecting your bigotry on others. Check your eye for motes.</p>
<p>Sheesh!</p>
<p>(Everyone else can have a wonderful weekend.)</p>GJO'L commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3f7f835e970c2013-01-04T23:18:07Z2013-01-04T23:18:07ZGJO'LDon't have time to take apart everything you said, MCN, but "parts don't fit," really? I'm not gay, so really...<p>Don&#39;t have time to take apart everything you said, MCN, but &quot;parts don&#39;t fit,&quot; really? I&#39;m not gay, so really I wouldn&#39;t know, but I think they sort of do fit -- it just depends on your perspective, right? Also, gay folks I&#39;ve known have told me their love isn&#39;t really about parts fitting. I&#39;ve pretty much taken them at their word on that.</p>
<p>I also didn&#39;t really understand your claim that &quot;[t]here are obvious differences between discrimination based on benign and irrelevant skin characteristics and different treatments based on obvious, innate, and inescapable biological differences.&quot; I think you were saying that racial differences among us are or ought to be irrelevant because they are benign (on that we would agree), but that &quot;obvious, innate, and inescapable biological differences&quot; (that someone is gay as opposed to straight, or, that the two partners in a traditional, heterosexual marriage have these innate differences and so their union warrants the state&#39;s blessing, sorry to use that word) warrant the &quot;different treatment&quot; of having their unions sanctioned (or not). I suppose I see the difference between gay and straight as benign, so I don&#39;t see the basis for different treatment, and it is different treatment, under the law, that the gay is getting. </p>
<p>I&#39;m not seeing anything intellectually dishonest about the comparison to slavery so long as we understand the difference in degree. You keep bringing up polygamy, but to me that seems something entirely different, i.e., sanctioning a union between two people whether gay or not, versus sanctioning a union between one man and multiple women. I can think of a lot of reasons why polygamy is so potentially unhealthy (and even dangerous or abusive) that we&#39;d deny legal sanction to it. We&#39;re talking about two-person unions here and saying marriage is a two-person union, the issue being which &quot;kinds&quot; of persons get to have it, not whether we think a gay-blind approach to marriage is equivalent to unions of a man and 10 or 12 women. That just isn&#39;t what we&#39;re talking about, and your resort to the polygamy analogy makes you sound desperate, and not as logical as I must say you usually are.</p>
<p>Perhaps you believe two-person gay unions to be unhealthy or dangerous. I don&#39;t know, but I don&#39;t think they are and haven&#39;t seen evidence that they are. And as I&#39;ve said on this board before, I&#39;ve seen enough products of unhealthy heterosexual unions in my time at 26th Street and the Audy Home to know that these unions don&#39;t have a monopoly on morals or good child-rearing. </p>MCN commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017c35508ee8970b2013-01-04T23:13:50Z2013-01-04T23:13:50ZMCN@Edge: Thanks for the thoughtful and courteous post. Like you I don't want to rehash what has been said so...<p>@Edge: Thanks for the thoughtful and courteous post. Like you I don&#39;t want to rehash what has been said so many times. But...</p>
<p>My self-defined role here hasn&#39;t been to define the purposes of marriage, but to defend the different treatment of relationships between a man and a woman and two people of the same sex. I won&#39;t repeat myself.</p>
<p>From the perspective of marriage, and here a very loose and extremely incomplete definition (so forgive me if I&#39;m not interested in responding to attacks on that definition) being propagation of the species and a tried and true way of doing that we see the homosexual relationship can&#39;t propagate and its means of having sex are, well, unnatural in that they may be entertaining but aren&#39;t and can&#39;t be procreative. So they&#39;re different.</p>
<p>Polygamy has a very prominent place in this debate because the homosexual causus has repeatedly denied that the law must permit polygamous marriages if it permits homosexual ones.</p>
<p>As I have said, this argument is complete bullsh*t and is intellectually dishonest. </p>
<p>Biology, history, tradition and culture all demonstrate that the case for polygamous marriage is stronger and the arrangement is far more commonly used than homosexual ones. Yet, against all evidence, the caucus denies that logical inevitability that, mainly because they know that the argument will increase resistance to their particular end. </p>
<p>That is, the idea of polygamous marriages right now has the same degree of support as homosexual marriages had fifty or a hundred years ago, that is to say: none. What&#39;s more, it has a certain &quot;ick&quot; factor with which the caucus wants no association.</p>
<p>But who can say that, if the caucus gets its wish, the support for polygamy won&#39;t have the same kind of momentum in fifty years, at which point we&#39;ll all be dead and the present caucus members won&#39;t be alive to be shown they were wrong.</p>
<p>So the reason it&#39;s important is that this denial proves the incoherence, dishonesty, and hypocrisy of the causus&#39;s position. Which is why I have little respect for those persons making that denial. It really is an indefensible position and shows how corrupt their arguments can be. </p>MCN commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017c35508de3970b2013-01-04T23:13:05Z2013-01-04T23:13:05ZMCN@Edge: Thanks for the thoughtful and courteous post. Like you I don't want to rehash what has been said so...<p>@Edge: Thanks for the thoughtful and courteous post. Like you I don&#39;t want to rehash what has been said so many times. But...</p>
<p>My self-defined role here hasn&#39;t been to define the purposes of marriage, but to defend the different treatment of relationships between a man and a woman and two people of the same sex. I won&#39;t repeat myself.</p>
<p>From the perspective of marriage, and here a very loose and extremely incomplete definition (so forgive me if I&#39;m not interested in responding to attacks on that definition) being propagation of the species and a tried and true way of doing that we see the homosexual relationship can&#39;t propagate and its means of having sex are, well, unnatural in that they may be entertaining but aren&#39;t and can&#39;t be procreative. So they&#39;re different.</p>
<p>Polygamy has a very prominent place in this debate because the homosexual causus has repeatedly denied that the law must permit polygamous marriages if it permits homosexual ones.</p>
<p>As I have said, this argument is complete bullsh*t and is intellectually dishonest. </p>
<p>Biology, history, tradition and culture all demonstrate that the case for polygamous marriage is stronger and the arrangement is far more commonly used than homosexual ones. Yet, against all evidence, the caucus denies that logical inevitability that, mainly because they know that the argument will increase resistance to their particular end. </p>
<p>That is, the idea of polygamous marriages right now has the same degree of support as homosexual marriages had fifty or a hundred years ago, that is to say: none. What&#39;s more, it has a certain &quot;ick&quot; factor with which the caucus wants no association.</p>
<p>But who can say that, if the caucus gets its wish, the support for polygamy won&#39;t have the same kind of momentum in fifty years, at which point we&#39;ll all be dead and the present caucus members won&#39;t be alive to be shown they were wrong.</p>
<p>So the reason it&#39;s important is that this denial proves the incoherence, dishonesty, and hypocrisy of the causus&#39;s position. Which is why I have little respect for those persons making that denial. It really is an indefensible position and shows how corrupt their arguments can be. </p>Greg J. commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3f7f798a970c2013-01-04T23:10:48Z2013-01-04T23:10:48ZGreg J.@ronnie bats, Better, but you still have some work to do. It's not just the tax benefits I'm opposed to,...<p>@ronnie bats,</p>
<p>Better, but you still have some work to do. It&#39;s not just the tax benefits I&#39;m opposed to, it&#39;s all taxpayer-provided benefits. I made that very clear above and please note that there is a whopping big difference between taxpayer-provided benefits (these include all government benefits because that&#39;s where the government gets its money) and tax benefits (which are derived by an individual as reported on his tax return). Anyway, I don&#39;t want to pay for someone else&#39;s relationship because I don&#39;t care what anyone else does in terms of forming relationships. It&#39;s not my business nor my problem. I&#39;m a believer in freedom of association without government intrusion. Again, that&#39;s just a preference and I understand those who feel differently.</p>
<p>Yes, others pointed out that the supposed tax consequences of marriage are hardly a reason to rally against it. That&#39;s fine for them. However, as I also stated clearly above, someone else&#39;s relationship is not worth one penny of my tax dollars. When I vote on a new law, my default is &quot;no&quot; unless I see the benefits outweighing the costs. I don&#39;t see that here. When I vote on repealing a law, my default is &quot;yes&quot; using the same analysis.</p>
<p>And to be perfectly clear, I&#39;m not against marriage. I am very much, emphatically, and enthusiastically for marriage. That&#39;s why I want the government out of it. It&#39;s too important to let them screw it up as they&#39;ve done, especially in recent decades (e.g., no fault divorce). It&#39;s a Catholic sacrament not a political football (oh, and to non-Catholics, it&#39;s whatever they want it to be as I really don&#39;t care how someone outside of my religion views marriage).</p>
<p>Again, if you are going to accuse someone else of bigotry, you could at least bother to read what he wrote. If you want to talk about what&#39;s laughable, it&#39;s that for the second time you write a rebuttal without taking a few seconds to understand what you are disagreeing with. What I wrote isn&#39;t that complicated and you seem like a smart enough guy that you should be getting it.</p>Dr X commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017c355088ab970b2013-01-04T23:09:32Z2013-01-04T23:09:32ZDr XGreg, I wasn't calling you a hypocrite. I said that I think the subsidy argument is a rationalization to support...<p>Greg, I wasn&#39;t calling you a hypocrite. I said that I think the subsidy argument is a rationalization to support what you believe regardless of the status of subsidies or penalties. So I was suggesting that depending on the work situation faced by you and a future spouse, you could break even or save on taxes by not having a civil marriage (recoup some of those pennies you think you&#39;re unjustly paying for other people&#39;s relationships) and at the same time you could get the government out of your marriage. Why wouldn&#39;t you consider this an option if this was fundamentally about subsidies and taking the advantages that are available? </p>
<p>You say that even if it&#39;s costing you pennies to subsidize another person&#39;s relationship, you object. Okay, so what if an extensive analysis revealed that the net effect is zero. Would you then drop your objection to gay marriage, or opt for my proposal so that you could simply get the government out of your relationship?</p>
<p>So far the only situation I&#39;m aware of in which you will happily drop the civil side of marriage is the situation that we all know is never going to happen. So you&#39;ll continue to complain about paying to subsidize other people&#39;s relationships, until you might avail yourself of the subsidy? Then you&#39;ll happily take a subsidy from gay couples because you can? Now that you&#39;ve made me think this through a bit further, I guess I would see this last part as more than a little hypocritical. </p>Xuuths commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3f7f7445970c2013-01-04T23:07:14Z2013-01-04T23:07:14ZXuuthsPublicus, your use of the phrase "life style" automatically brands you as someone who is incapable of "rational mature debate."...<p>Publicus, your use of the phrase &quot;life style&quot; automatically brands you as someone who is incapable of &quot;rational mature debate.&quot;</p>
<p>Todd, I have already pointed out your error of calling homosexuality a &quot;genetic defect&quot;. An intelligent person would learn, and not repeat the mistake.</p>Xuuths commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017c35508240970b2013-01-04T23:05:21Z2013-01-04T23:05:21ZXuuthsleft hell inois, I tried putting your post through Google Translate's Idiot-to-English app, but it still came out as garbled...<p>left hell inois, I tried putting your post through Google Translate&#39;s Idiot-to-English app, but it still came out as garbled nonsense.</p>
<p>You do realize, don&#39;t you, that legalizing same-sex marriage in Illinois would INCREASE tax revenues, STIMULATE our local economy, and reduce the stranglehold religion has on everyone&#39;s life. Why would you have anything against any of those things?</p>Publicus commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3f7f6e49970c2013-01-04T23:03:04Z2013-01-04T23:03:04ZPublicus"Publicus - just an FYI, the phrase "life style" automatically brands you as someone not to be taken seriously. Posted...<p>&quot;Publicus - just an FYI, the phrase &quot;life style&quot; automatically brands you as someone not to be taken seriously.</p>
<p> Posted by: Dienne | Friday, January 04, 2013 at 11:01 AM&quot;</p>
<p>Really, Dienne? Your comment establishes that it is impossible to have any kind of rational mature debate with you Gay marriage proponents - you&#39;re incapable of anything except snark or using the old high school debater&#39;s trick of attacking your opponent personally rather than addressing the argument itself. That tactic is a tantamount admission of the bankruptcy of your position. <br />
</p>Todd commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3f7f6d79970c2013-01-04T23:02:26Z2013-01-04T23:02:26ZTodd Hi, Dienne. I am not a religious individual so I can't answer your question about God's opinion of abortion. Although...<p>Hi, Dienne. I am not a religious individual so I can&#39;t answer your question about God&#39;s opinion of abortion. Although I certainly respect the views of those who are anti-abortion, if an individual wants to terminate an abortion because of genetic defects like homosexuality, Down syndrome and the like, I would also respect that decision. </p>left hell inois commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017c35507725970b2013-01-04T22:58:18Z2013-01-05T09:15:50Zleft hell inoishttp://profile.typepad.com/6p017d3f7f5537970clet's see if i got this right. the state is broke and just increased the income tax 67%, doubled the...<p>let&#39;s see if i got this right. the state is broke and just increased the income tax 67%, doubled the tolls and the last 2 gov&#39;s are in jail for corruptions soon to be joined by jjj once he recovers from the shock of getting caught. chicago leads the nation again in homicides and is installing speed camera&#39;s to increase the revenue stream. and what do the esteemed distinguished politicians do to help ALL of the people of illinois with these issues? try to ramrod special interest legislation to appease the homo votes. the rahmfather must be pleased, chicago values at work here people. someone get me a chik fil a samich.</p>Wendy commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017c355073cb970b2013-01-04T22:56:01Z2013-01-04T22:56:01ZWendyHere's my problem with Greg J's position on gay marriage and his objection it would create a higher tax burden...<p>Here&#39;s my problem with Greg J&#39;s position on gay marriage and his objection it would create a higher tax burden to allow gays this right. He&#39;s also stated in the past he&#39;s against no-fault divorce (correct if I&#39;m wrong) and would make it harder for couples to divorce if he had his way. Eliminating the ability to divorce would leave far more heterosexual couples benefiting from marriage tax laws than allowing gays to marry. So, I can&#39;t buy he&#39;s about strictly limiting government&#39;s role in marriage in regard to the tax issue.</p>Edge of the 14th Ward commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017c35506e16970b2013-01-04T22:51:57Z2013-01-04T22:51:57ZEdge of the 14th Ward@MCN: I agree with you that it's tedious to go 'round and 'round regarding gay marriage. It has been talked...<p>@MCN: I agree with you that it&#39;s tedious to go &#39;round and &#39;round regarding gay marriage. It has been talked to death, which is why I usually don&#39;t post in these threads, and honestly barely bother to read them. So forgive me if these questions have been asked and answered a thousand times. I&#39;m sure they have:</p>
<p>1) Do you agree with Eric that same-sex marriage will eventually become legal throughout the United States? Given how strongly young people favor that course of action, I don&#39;t see how it won&#39;t, but maybe you have a different take.</p>
<p>2) You write, &quot;There are obvious differences between discrimination based on benign and irrelevant skin characteristics and different treatments based on obvious, innate, and inescapable biological differences.&quot; There is no doubt that biological differences can fairly and legally lead to different treatment, but why is that the case with marriage? What biological differences justify different treatment of same-sex couples? Their inability to procreate? (Your &quot;parts don&#39;t fit&quot; argument strikes me as odd because same-sex couples are perfectly capable of having sex.)</p>
<p>3) What purpose do you think marriage serves in society? For many straight couples, I think it serves as a way to express their commitment to one another. It also provides legal protections and security in the event that they decide to raise children. Gay couples aren&#39;t biologically unable to express commitment or raise children. Are there other purposes you think marriage serves that are antithetical to LGBT identity?</p>
<p>4) I&#39;m not sure polygamy has a place in this debate. Current marriage laws allow individuals to marry any consenting adult human they choose, so long as that human is of the opposite sex. Same-sex marriage advocates would like to do away with that last restriction. They generally acknowledge that the other restrictions (can&#39;t marry an animal, can&#39;t marry a child, can&#39;t marry multiple people) are legitimate. They want to broaden the law concerning one-on-one marriage. They want to keep the same structure that exists, but extend its benefits and legitimacy to same-sex couples.</p>
<p>@Greg J: I&#39;ll stipulate that there is probably some nominal cost involved in extending marriage rights to same-sex couples, but there were also costs involved in extending marriage rights to interracial couples and in extending voting rights to women. Also, many of the &quot;costs&quot; associated with extending marriage involve tax breaks for married couples, which result in less money flowing to the federal treasury. I would think that would be right up your alley.</p>
<p>Honestly, if you think marriage should be restricted to straight couples because they can procreate, or because they make better parents, or because that is what&#39;s good for society...then I have no problem with that line of advocacy. I disagree with it, but at least it maintains internal logic. But to argue that marriage should be restricted to straight couples because gay marriage would cost taxpayers money strikes me as bizarre. If we perceive of marriage as a right (and most people do), then it should be available to everyone and any restrictions placed on it should be carefully considered. There are good reasons to deny a marriage license to a child, a driver&#39;s license to a blind man, or a FOID card to a felon, but what is the pressing reason to deny any of those licenses to someone based on sexual orientation?</p>Xuuths commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017ee6f3cb3e970d2013-01-04T22:51:05Z2013-01-04T22:51:05ZXuuthsNatural Law King, you are also confused about what "natural law" means. Are you suggesting that IN NATURE, young males...<p>Natural Law King, you are also confused about what &quot;natural law&quot; means. Are you suggesting that IN NATURE, young males of various species don&#39;t get diddled? I think you may be wrong about that. (HINT: they also get eaten and horribly abused, because Nature is like that.)</p>
<p>Homosexuality exists in ALL mammals -- therefore &quot;natural law&quot; means homosexuality is normal, although it may not be typical for you personally.</p>Kip commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3f7f4fe8970c2013-01-04T22:41:24Z2013-01-04T22:41:24ZKip"Its not illegal for an Effeminate acting male to marry a Masculine acting female or vice versa." This is an...<p>&quot;Its not illegal for an Effeminate acting male to marry a Masculine acting female or vice versa.&quot;</p>
<p>This is an extremely important point and I&#39;m glad someone finally brought it up.</p>Difference between Gender and Sex commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3f7f3e36970c2013-01-04T22:28:59Z2013-01-04T22:28:59ZDifference between Gender and SexThere is a difference between gender and sex. Same sex marriage has nothing to do with gender. Yet these words...<p>There is a difference between gender and sex. Same sex marriage has nothing to do with gender. Yet these words are tossed around interchangeably. </p>
<p>Its not illegal for an Effeminate acting male to marry a Masculine acting female or vice versa.</p>
<p>Please learn the difference, if you are going to talk about them. </p>Natural Law King commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017ee6f3a33f970d2013-01-04T22:24:16Z2013-01-04T22:24:16ZNatural Law KingIts against "natural law" for little boys to be diddled at the corner of State & Chicago. Time to collect...<p>Its against &quot;natural law&quot; for little boys to be diddled at the corner of State &amp; Chicago. Time to collect all taxes (including all Arrearages) for that property dating back to the incorporation of Chicago. Commercial sex clubs have to pay taxes, this one should </p>Xuuths commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017c3550465c970b2013-01-04T22:22:54Z2013-01-04T22:22:54ZXuuthsNatania, your response is not evidence. It's okay to admit you made something up. This is a safe environment.<p>Natania, your response is not evidence. It&#39;s okay to admit you made something up. This is a safe environment.</p>ronnie bats commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3f7f3637970c2013-01-04T22:22:35Z2013-01-04T22:22:35Zronnie batsGreg J - You've created nothing more than a ridiculous straw man argument. You profess that you are not opposed...<p>Greg J - You&#39;ve created nothing more than a ridiculous straw man argument. You profess that you are not opposed to gay marriage, just the tax benefits that accompany it. You then go on to say that straight marriage is equally outrageous because of the tax benefits associated with it. As many others have already opined, the supposed tax consequences (gay or straight) of marriage are hardly a reason to rally against it. I find it specious that you would use a tax argument as a legitimate excuse for opposing marriage. It&#39;s a laughable argument. Surely you can come up with something more compelling than that to justify your bigotry. </p>Nancy F. commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3f7f35d5970c2013-01-04T22:22:12Z2013-01-04T22:22:12ZNancy F.Zorn's article makes me support Marriage (natural) by even more than I did before<p>Zorn&#39;s article makes me support Marriage (natural) by even more than I did before</p>Natania commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017c35503483970b2013-01-04T22:08:39Z2013-01-04T22:08:39ZNataniaXuuths: "Natania, it would help us if you would link to those "all sociological studies done over the past 40...<p>Xuuths:</p>
<p>&quot;Natania, it would help us if you would link to those &quot;all sociological studies done over the past 40 years point to a mountain of evidence&quot; supporting your position. I don&#39;t think they exist outside of your imagination.&quot;</p>
<p>Similar to the existence of Eric&#39;s.</p>Xuuths commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3f7f0f2a970c2013-01-04T21:53:39Z2013-01-04T21:53:39ZXuuthsGreg J., you are again confused about what "fad" means. I find your "they can legally get married under the...<p>Greg J., you are again confused about what &quot;fad&quot; means. </p>
<p>I find your &quot;they can legally get married under the same rules that apply to everyone else&quot; fallacy (which the SCOTUS rejected) further proof that you either don&#39;t understand equality under the law, or are purposely lying about it.</p>
<p>Your hypocrisy about wanting &quot;to protect taxpayers&quot; while sticking it to taxpayers through corporate tax breaks does not speak well about you.</p>Xuuths commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3f7efa4a970c2013-01-04T21:39:51Z2013-01-04T21:39:51ZXuuthsMCN, you are terribly confused about what "immutable" means, but you keep using it. Please stop. Your pathetic "immutable differences"...<p>MCN, you are terribly confused about what &quot;immutable&quot; means, but you keep using it. Please stop.</p>
<p>Your pathetic &quot;immutable differences&quot; argument was used to keep blacks from marrying whites. It was as faulty and wrong and bigoted then as your use is now.</p>
<p>Your pathetic &quot;established practice&quot; argument was used to support slavery. It was as faulty and wrong and bigoted then as your use is now.</p>
<p>Are you detecting a pattern?</p>
<p>Do you seriously think that homosexual parts don&#39;t fit? Really? Are you that ignorant?</p>
<p>Your so-called &quot;facts&quot; ARE disputed, repeatedly. Stop lying by saying they are undisputed. (Unless you really don&#39;t know what &quot;undisputed&quot; means.)<br />
===============</p>
<p>Todd, your ignorance about Nature is astounding. Educate yourself.</p>
<p>You are also completely wrong in your use of the word &quot;defect&quot; when the accurate word is &quot;difference&quot; -- it is based on the arrogance of a heterosexual thinking they are the norm. Much like white people believe they are the norm, when DNA tells us that it is the lack of melanin which made their skin change from its original dark color.</p>
<p>Educate yourself.</p>Greg J. commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017ee6f36203970d2013-01-04T21:37:16Z2013-01-04T21:37:16ZGreg J.@Richard S., You wrote: "Who pays for the tax breaks married couples gets. It is those that do not have...<p>@Richard S.,</p>
<p>You wrote: &quot;Who pays for the tax breaks married couples gets. It is those that do not have kids and the homosexuals.&quot;</p>
<p>No, it&#39;s every taxpayer.</p>
<p>&quot;Until such a time when the government takes away the tax breaks heterosexuals receive, you have to give the same benefits to the homosexuals.&quot;</p>
<p>They have the same benefits available to them already. They can legally get married under the same rules that apply to everyone else. What we&#39;re arguing about is whether the definition should be changed to support a fad promoted by homosexuals and their leftist supporters.</p>
<p>@MCN,</p>
<p>Oh, I&#39;m being very careful and I have my eye on your replies too. I&#39;m almost out of Jim Beam and I&#39;ll gladly allow you to fund my next bottle if you mess up.</p>Dienne commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3f7eedc3970c2013-01-04T21:31:26Z2013-01-04T21:31:26ZDienne"...further winnow the number of homosexuals through elective abortions...." So, in other words, kill the gays? BTW, what does your...<p>&quot;...further winnow the number of homosexuals through elective abortions....&quot;</p>
<p>So, in other words, kill the gays? BTW, what does your God have to say about abortion for that purpose? Bit of a conundrum ain&#39;t it?</p>Pan commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017c354ffe2a970b2013-01-04T21:31:02Z2013-01-04T21:31:02ZPan"Even a liberal should understand the immutable differences between a marital and family unit based on a husband and wife...<p>&quot;Even a liberal should understand the immutable differences between a marital and family unit based on a husband and wife and one based on two people of the same sex.&quot;</p>
<p>Yes. The former has one fewer person of a given gender than the latter. What this has to do with public policy is something that even a conservative can&#39;t explain.</p>
<p>I would go into the legal thickets that polygamous marriage would entail, especially in the case of divorce, if I thought MCN were making this argument in good faith. Yeah, right.</p>Greg J. commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017c354ffca9970b2013-01-04T21:30:00Z2013-01-04T21:30:00ZGreg J.@Dr. X, If you want to hypothesize about the psychological underpinnings of my opposition to radically redefining the term "marriage"...<p>@Dr. X,</p>
<p>If you want to hypothesize about the psychological underpinnings of my opposition to radically redefining the term &quot;marriage&quot; to support a taxpayer giveaway to a left-wing self interest group then go right ahead. You are the doctor. However, you&#39;ll note that I&#39;ve been very consistent about protecting taxpayer dollars and limiting government across a very wide variety of topics.</p>
<p>You go on to argue that each taxpayer cost imposed by changing the legal definition of marriage is trivial. Well, just about every taxpayer cost is trivial especially when you look at the cost per individual. My argument is that if a new law imposes a cost and I don&#39;t see a very compelling benefit, I&#39;m against it.</p>
<p>Then you wrote &quot;And, when and if the time comes, maybe you should get married in the Church, then combine your honeymoon with a quickie Vegas divorce along with legal contracts to take care of the future between you and your sacramental wife. You&#39;ll still be married in the eyes of God and the Church, and the withdrawal of your marriage from the civil sphere will take the government out of your relationship where it doesn&#39;t belong, according to another rationalization you&#39;ve offered for your position. The decision would stand as testament to your belief that marriage is exclusively a religious construct. And if you and the future Mrs. J work, you&#39;ll pay less in taxes. If either you or the future Mrs. J doesn&#39;t work, you&#39;re still eligible to declare the non-working church-spouse as a dependent. It&#39;s all good.&quot;</p>
<p>This is the same, tired &quot;hypocrite&quot; argument that wasn&#39;t persuasive the first 1,000 times I heard it. As I wrote to another commenter, I don&#39;t blame anyone for taking advantage of every tax break that is out there. We are all overtaxed so by all means grab what you can. I&#39;ll take marriage benefits, tax refunds I disagree with, and any other handout the government wants to give me because it takes too much from me in the first place. I won&#39;t criticize anyone else for trying to deny me those breaks. Hell, I&#39;ll even vote against them myself. But when the government confiscates my money and spends it on things I don&#39;t like, I&#39;m trying to get back as much as possible and the way to do that is to use its own dumb laws against it. In fact, I think we should collectively be trying to keep money away from the government because the less money it has, the less harm it can do.</p>Todd commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3f7ee9c9970c2013-01-04T21:28:49Z2013-01-04T21:28:49ZTodd LOL, Jakash. The problem isn't with the prejudices of Hoosiers and Southerners (or even with the announced prejudices of our...<p>LOL, Jakash. The problem isn&#39;t with the prejudices of Hoosiers and Southerners (or even with the announced prejudices of our President until about six months ago), but with the prejudices of nature. As a result, legislative attempts to provide affirmation for these sexual aberrants will inevitably lead to frustration and unavailing attempts to circumvent the obvious.</p>
<p>As to Dr. X&#39;s point, to the extent homosexuality is the resulf of an inherited genetic defect, then research which allows the defect to be identified pre-natally can be used to further winnow the number of homosexuals through elective abortions, or to deny the type of androgenization of the fetal brain which results in this orientation (as explained by Dr. X above). <br />
</p>MCN commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017c354fef7d970b2013-01-04T21:21:06Z2013-01-04T21:21:06ZMCN@GJO'L, Jakash, and the rest: I view drawing an equivalence between slavery/racism and homosexual marriage as intellectually dishonest and deceptive....<p>@GJO&#39;L, Jakash, and the rest: I view drawing an equivalence between slavery/racism and homosexual marriage as intellectually dishonest and deceptive.</p>
<p>There are obvious differences between discrimination based on benign and irrelevant skin characteristics and different treatments based on obvious, innate, and inescapable biological differences.</p>
<p>Even a liberal should understand the immutable differences between a marital and family unit based on a husband and wife and one based on two people of the same sex. I should not have to point out those differences out to intelligent people, and I will not.</p>
<p>So, besides the fact that one can rationally justify different treatment because of these differences, and history has justified them, you also put yourself in a trick bag by rejecting polygamous relationships while arguing for homosexual ones. This both dishonest and incoherent for at least three reasons:</p>
<p>1) Polygamous relationships have a long and, in some cultures, respected history and were protected legally. No one has pointed out a society accepting homosexual marriage except for a hotly criticized book about the medieval Catholic and Orthodox churches. Except for that, nothing. So you have to entirely disregard one established practice while asserting one that has no history of acceptance.</p>
<p>2) Polygamous marriages have the same accouterments as monagamous ones: the parts fit and they are fertile. Homosexual ones are neither.</p>
<p>3) They are volutary associations between willing people, just like homosexual ones.</p>
<p>The homosexual causus has to wave away these undisputed facts because it knows its arguments are inconsistent and unsupportable: if one favors homosexual marriage, one has to inevitably support polygamous ones, which has a stronger historical, legal and biological argument and equally volutary. Yet the caucus doesn&#39;t.</p>
<p>I admire the caucus&#39;s febrile attempts to distinguish these two, but imagination and fantasy fall victim to reality.</p>
<p>In sum: Nice acquarium, no fish. </p>
<p>I&#39;ve said what I have to say and given we&#39;ve done this March of the Ten Thousand too many times already, I leave you to your devices.</p>
<p>@Jakash: Your remark was inane and appropriate as well as being a clever parodic use of a dull, threadworn, and moribund cliche.</p>
<p>@GregJ: Just a word of caution: be careful who you deal with here.</p>Dienne commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017ee6f34941970d2013-01-04T21:20:45Z2013-01-04T21:20:45ZDienneNatania - what makes you think you wouldn't have spent a lifetime "picking up the pieces" of your parents' bad...<p>Natania - what makes you think you wouldn&#39;t have spent a lifetime &quot;picking up the pieces&quot; of your parents&#39; bad marriage had they not been able to get divorced? The problem most likely wasn&#39;t that they got divorced, but that they got married in the first place.</p>Greg J. commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017c354feb4d970b2013-01-04T21:18:13Z2013-01-04T21:18:13ZGreg J.@Dienne, Instead of Googling the government benefits available to married couples, you cherry pick a couple of benefits and act...<p>@Dienne,</p>
<p>Instead of Googling the government benefits available to married couples, you cherry pick a couple of benefits and act as if that&#39;s all I was talking about.</p>
<p>Here is a Wikipedia page for you: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States." rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States.</a></p>
<p>If the link doesn&#39;t work, I&#39;m sure you can find it. Happy reading. </p>
<p>Let&#39;s say that the benefits to homosexuals who get &quot;married&quot; only cost each individual taxpayers pennies. I&#39;d still vote against it because someone else&#39;s relationship is not worth a penny to me.</p>Xuuths commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017ee6f3448f970d2013-01-04T21:17:35Z2013-01-04T21:17:35ZXuuthsNatania, it would help us if you would link to those "all sociological studies done over the past 40 years...<p>Natania, it would help us if you would link to those &quot;all sociological studies done over the past 40 years point to a mountain of evidence&quot; supporting your position. I don&#39;t think they exist outside of your imagination.</p>Greg J. commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017c354fe44c970b2013-01-04T21:13:10Z2013-01-04T21:13:10ZGreg J.@ronnie bats, Respectfully, your reading comprehension skills/effort need some work. You wrote " If this is simply reduced to a...<p>@ronnie bats,</p>
<p>Respectfully, your reading comprehension skills/effort need some work. </p>
<p>You wrote &quot; If this is simply reduced to a matter of corporations (or individuals) &quot;taking advantage of the law as written&quot; then you can&#39;t blame a group of disadvantaged individuals for trying to change the laws to benefit them.&quot;</p>
<p>I had previously written (at 11:02AM): &quot;Similarly, I have no problem with homosexuals taking advantage of marriage benefits provided to them but they shoudn&#39;t exist either. Again, it&#39;s the government&#39;s fault.&quot;</p>
<p>Seriously, man, criticize my views all you want but at least read them first to spare yourself some future embarrassment.</p>Xuuths commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017ee6f33dbd970d2013-01-04T21:12:41Z2013-01-04T21:12:41ZXuuthsMCN, your knowledge of science is a poor as in most every other instance where you attempt to claim understanding....<p>MCN, your knowledge of science is a poor as in most every other instance where you attempt to claim understanding. (Are you sharing your IQ with Brian?)</p>
<p>Todd, your &#39;point&#39; is exactly why the SCOTUS will probably end the debate with their two cases on this topic. </p>
<p>Of course discrimination against Blacks because of religion/tradition saying they are inferior is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from discrimination against Gays because of religion/tradition saying they are inferior. Right... </p>
<p>Doesn&#39;t it hurt when you write something that ignorant?</p>
<p>How would two people &quot;share&quot; a Metra pass? Do you presume the conductor will not check both people if they ride together? And if they ride separately, what is the difference? Such silliness. Sadly, that was an example of your best argument, and it was pathetic.</p>
<p>Not to put too fine a point on it, but skin color is not immutable. It can be changed -- read &quot;Black Like Me&quot; about one man&#39;s journey doing exactly that!</p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Like_Me" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Like_Me</a><br />
</p>Dr X commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3f7ec5fa970c2013-01-04T21:03:43Z2013-01-04T21:03:43ZDr XShallow thinker, There are numerous studies suggesting that sexual orientation is inborn in many cases. First, let's clear something up....<p>Shallow thinker,</p>
<p>There are numerous studies suggesting that sexual orientation is inborn in many cases. First, let&#39;s clear something up. Inborn or innate are not identical to heritable and heritable doesn&#39;t mean inevitable. Inborn can include gene expression turned on or off by environmental singals. (see epigenetics) In the case of sexual orienation, it appears that sexual orientation may be related to androgenization of the fetal brain during a critical time period in utero.<br />
<br />
Just happens that there was an article published on that subject last month. You can read the abstract here.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/668167" rel="nofollow">http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/668167</a></p>
<p>If you check out Wikipedia &quot;Biology and sexual orientation&quot; you&#39;ll find a bit more of the research. There&#39;s a good deal of evidence for a biological explanations, not proof. Biology doesn&#39;t proceed by proving anything.</p>
<p>There is plenty of scientific reading you can do on the subject if you make an effort.</p>Jakash commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017ee6f3216c970d2013-01-04T20:52:50Z2013-01-04T20:52:50ZJakash"say, Indiana, where their little paper will most likely elicit smirks and polite chuckles. (The reaction in the South will...<p>&quot;say, Indiana, where their little paper will most likely elicit smirks and polite chuckles. (The reaction in the South will probably be a little more overt.)&quot;</p>
<p>Finally, a compelling argument. Our laws and societal standards should certainly take into consideration whatever prejudices are maintained by Hoosiers and Southerners, for however long they last... </p>
<p><br />
</p>Natania commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017ee6f31f45970d2013-01-04T20:51:15Z2013-01-04T20:51:15ZNatania"And as more and more states and nations legalize it, sociological studies reveal that the supposed harms of gay marriage...<p>&quot;And as more and more states and nations legalize it, sociological studies reveal that the supposed harms of gay marriage are merely the product of the tortured imaginations of reactionaries.&quot;</p>
<p>It would help me if someone could link to the sociological studies mentioned above.</p>
<p>I grew up at the time no-fault divorce came into vogue. The mantra at the time was , &quot;A good divorce is better than a bad marriage.&quot; My parents fell for that line and I&#39;ve spent a lifetime picking up the pieces. And lo and behold, all sociological studies done over the past 40 years point to a mountain of evidence disproving the mantra. </p>
<p>Remember when doctors advertised the health benefits of smoking? And the Anti-Cigaret League was vilified as prissy prudey religionists?</p>
<p>Some things you just know intuitively. But, do watch out for Eric&#39;s steamroller of fairness. If you can&#39;t reason with them, run them over, right? Ala Tiananmen Square.</p>Edge of the 14th Ward commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017ee6f303e3970d2013-01-04T20:30:04Z2013-01-04T20:30:04ZEdge of the 14th Ward@Brian: "By "some people" [defining marriage as between one man and one woman], you must mean billions of people, in...<p>@Brian: &quot;By &quot;some people&quot; [defining marriage as between one man and one woman], you must mean billions of people, in virtually every society ever known, over several millennia (or longer).&quot;</p>
<p>Guess again:</p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy#Patterns_of_occurrence_worldwide" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy#Patterns_of_occurrence_worldwide</a></p>
<p>&quot;According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, of 1,231 societies noted [between 1960 and 1980!], 186 were monogamous, 453 had occasional polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 had polyandry.&quot; That&#39;s to say nothing of ancient societies.</p>
<p>Also, not to beat a dead horse, but:</p>
<p>&quot;Gays cannot be caught [sharing a monthly Metra pass].&quot;</p>
<p>Neither can same-sex roommates, same-sex neighbors, or same-sex siblings. The split between those who can easily cheat the gender stamp and those cannot has nothing to do with sexual orientation.</p>Dienne commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017ee6f2f645970d2013-01-04T20:20:31Z2013-01-04T20:20:31ZDienne""I just love how some people define marriage as "one man, one woman" " By "some people," you must mean...<p>&quot;&quot;I just love how some people define marriage as &quot;one man, one woman&quot; &quot;</p>
<p>By &quot;some people,&quot; you must mean billions of people, in virtually every society ever known, over several millennia (or longer).&quot;</p>
<p>Really? Read your Bible - I&#39;m pretty sure marriage wasn&#39;t one man, *one* woman back then. Don&#39;t think it was (or is) in many Muslim cultures either.</p>Brian commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017c354f8c4d970b2013-01-04T20:09:44Z2013-01-22T19:46:34ZBrianhttp://profile.typepad.com/promark747"I just love how some people define marriage as "one man, one woman" " By "some people," you must mean...<p>&quot;I just love how some people define marriage as &quot;one man, one woman&quot; &quot;</p>
<p>By &quot;some people,&quot; you must mean billions of people, in virtually every society ever known, over several millennia (or longer).</p>
<p>But I know, the earth was flat once...</p>Todd commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3f7e78a0970c2013-01-04T20:06:39Z2013-01-04T20:06:39ZTodd Mr. Zorn's column is basically a temper tantrum on the failure of the Senate to push through same-sex "marriage" immediately...<p>Mr. Zorn&#39;s column is basically a temper tantrum on the failure of the Senate to push through same-sex &quot;marriage&quot; immediately if not sooner. Mr. Zorn has been obsessing over this issue for years, and I hope he finally reaches personal fulfillment when this wonderful event occurs. Homosexuals will find their &quot;marriage&quot; means very little, however, should they move out of this state to, say, Indiana, where their little paper will most likely elicit smirks and polite chuckles. (The reaction in the South will probably be a little more overt.) </p>Richard S. commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3f7e6efb970c2013-01-04T20:00:22Z2013-01-04T20:00:22ZRichard S.I wonder if straight people who fight for their "right" to a divorce if suddenly that was taken away from...<p>I wonder if straight people who fight for their &quot;right&quot; to a divorce if suddenly that was taken away from them.</p>
<p>I just love how some people define marriage as &quot;one man, one woman&quot; To me all that means is that people think marriage begins and ends with &quot;I Do&quot;. To these people it is more important who gets married than what marriage is all about.</p>Richard S. commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017c354f7381970b2013-01-04T19:53:43Z2013-01-04T19:53:43ZRichard S.Greg j: "I've been arguing that government should stop funding private relationships with no exceptions since we started having these...<p>Greg j: &quot;I&#39;ve been arguing that government should stop funding private relationships with no exceptions since we started having these debates. We simply can&#39;t afford it. Our tax bills are already too high and our spending is already too far out of control.&quot;</p>
<p>Who pays for the tax breaks married couples gets. It is those that do not have kids and the homosexuals. Until such a time when the government takes away the tax breaks heterosexuals receive, you have to give the same benefits to the homosexuals.</p>Brian commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017ee6f2caa2970d2013-01-04T19:51:08Z2013-01-22T19:46:34ZBrianhttp://profile.typepad.com/promark747JL, Good catch...it wasn't related to gay marriage per se.<p>JL,</p>
<p>Good catch...it wasn&#39;t related to gay marriage per se.</p>ronnie bats commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017c354f6da3970b2013-01-04T19:50:19Z2013-01-04T19:50:19Zronnie batsBrian - Your example is laughable. You imply that Metra's procedure is narrowly aimed at heterosexual couples. This also suggests...<p>Brian - Your example is laughable. You imply that Metra&#39;s procedure is narrowly aimed at heterosexual couples. This also suggests that gay marriage would somehow provide a mechanism for cheating the Metra policy that doesn&#39;t exist today. I&#39;m sure if there is rampant abuse of the monthly ticket by gays, marriage won&#39;t change that. You&#39;ve done nothing more than illustrate how flimsy and baseless this &quot;cost to society&quot; argument against gay marriage is. </p>Occam's Razor commented on 'Best hope for gay marriage foes? Pseudonyms'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451b4ba69e2017d3f7e5cb8970c2013-01-04T19:49:07Z2013-01-04T19:49:07ZOccam's RazorBack to the original subject of Eric's post, pseudonyms, I wonder what actors will play the roles of NDM and...<p>Back to the original subject of Eric&#39;s post, pseudonyms, I wonder what actors will play the roles of NDM and HarryD in the movie.</p>
<p>And in an interesting twist, the director has plans to cast a woman to portray Peg K. Rumor has it that Cynthia Nixon is the front-runner.</p>